Wednesday, January 31, 2007

The Inescapable Logic of Global Warming

Behind the global warming or climate change debate is a lot of good chemistry, climatology, geophysics, and other science. But more central to the debate even than meteorology is Logic, one of the tools of the scientist. To analyze the debate we must peel apart the layers of logic, to see what we discover. I personally take no position on global warming, other than having my innate cynicism alerted when politicians dabble in science and vice versa.

The debate is about changing public opinion, because public opinion leads to public policy decisions, and policy decisions mean power and money. In the debate we find the usual techniques of sophistry used to great effect. We shall see many fallacies, and hopefully shed some light on some areas shrouded in the darkness of ostensible openness. Let us begin with the first layer, what I consider to be the most fundamental.

The Burden of Proof


The kind of logic practiced in rhetoric, law, and scientific writing is called 'informal logic'. It is a basic principle of informal logic that the Burden of Proof is always on the one making the assertion.

To show that societal changes are needed to combat global warming, proponents should not assume it proved that global warming is occurring or that certain changes are needed, asking doubters to show otherwise. Proponents of the theory of man-made or Anthropocentric Global Warming (AGW) must show:

  • That the Earth is getting warmer (by whatever cause)
  • That the warmth is on balance harmful to humans, directly or indirectly
  • That some step of remediation or mitigation is likely to be better for us than some other course of action.
Any harm to 'the planet' or to non-human creatures or plants must be stated in terms of its cost or consequence to humans, in order to compare the costs of acting and not acting.

On the other hand, since with the assertion goes the burden when challenging a particular proposition made by AGW activists, AGW deniers may find themselves in the same boat. In either case, failing to take on the burden of proof may mean that an argument is convincing only to those who already agree with its conclusion.

Suppressed Evidence

For some time, opponents of the theory of AGW have been arguing that only pro-AGW ideas are getting any attention in the news media and in scientific journals due to what can loosely be called political correctness. Proponents of AGW have charged that the Bush Administration has suppressed scientific reports, or edited them for content away from AGW.

Suppressing evidence is bad science, whether the evidence is politically popular or not. However, it is equally bad for scientists to tailor their findings politically as it is for politicians to do so for them. In any case, the suppression of evidence is not evidence, and charging suppression is not suppression. In the age of the Internet, for a scientist to claim inability to find a platform from which to speak seems most disingenuous.

Experts Agree

The next layer is hidden by the legitimate workings of the research process, making it difficult to spot: a combined Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Popularity. But a chain of two fallacies is still fallacious. The number and reputation of learned people who believe a proposition may affect how an idea spreads, but popularity does not affect truth or falsehood.

In a court of law, for instance, the truth is not determined by the number of experts one can line up to agree, else the better-funded or organized side would always win. It is up to the experts to present evidence, based on their experience and knowledge. The other side counters with expert evidence of its own, and the judge or jury evaluate. It is not the number of experts that decide the case, but the quality of the arguments each side can present. If a hundred experts declare that day is dark and night is light, the judges should find with one opposing expert noting the time and pointing to an open window.

Scientific Fact and the Zone of Conflict

Similarly, scientific belief is not, or should not be, formed on the basis of the number of scientists who believe one way or another.

All science is by definition unproven on some level; each fact is only accepted, not proved in the sense that a mathematician or logician proves something. For example, we don't know the speed of light, or that momentum is always conserved, and so on, only that according to observation and reasoning based on all of our observations to date, that the accepted fact or principle is reliable. Scientists speak of 'facts', but always with the knowledge that these 'facts' can be challenged. Challenging accepted facts requires supplying evidence and reasoning to counter them. It does not mean arranging a vote on the matter.

Experts on a given topic argue about it. The breadth of their discussion on a given topic varies, usually trending from the fundamental to the esoteric with the time and depth of study applied to the topic.

The number and reputation of scientists who accept something as probable or as fact only indicates the approximate parameters of the debate that surround a given idea. This can be thought of as the Zone of Conflict, the area for a given topic outside of which the facts are largely settled among experts. New evidence, or new arguments about old evidence, can change the popularity of a proposition, and thus expand or contract the Zone of Conflict in the field of study which pertains to that proposition, but they do not change its truth or falsehood.

Exaggerated Conflict


There is a fallacy lurking underneath the 'experts agree' layer and the 'scientific fact' layer, by which some seek to discredit a scientist or lay person based on how close his ideas are to Zone of Conflict. Conversely, some like to point out that no fact is ever totally proved, and thereby invent a controversy of fact when none really exists. Stating that all things are uncertain does not challenge a fact, any more than asserting a fact makes it so.

It is an Appeal to Ignorance to claim that because of the existence of the Zone of Conflict, any claim about that topic is as likely to be true as any other. But it is an Appeal to Authority to claim that an argument is invalid because it is outside the Zone. In general, the range of discussion that takes place on a topic says nothing about the validity of a particular argument or the truth of a particular proposition.

Since the Burden of Proof is on the one making the assertion, it is the responsibility of the one who would expand the Zone of Conflict to show that a real question exists. Conversely, properly rebuffing such an attempt requires actually showing that the matter is settled and why the question is no longer open.

A Straw Man for Illustration

An example of how the Global Warming Debate is typically waged is on this page, in which some arguments against AGW are listed, then attacked. The page says that its opponents say that "the science is unproven" and that for various reasons scientists can't be trusted. It says opponents say that we can't trust the scientists, because they are politically prejudiced liberals who have been wrong before and have financial incentives to lie.

To counter the argument that the science is unproven, the page goes into long and laborious treatment of the glories of scientists of the past, their discoveries and insights, as if that illustrates the correctness of these scientists on this topic, which of course it does not. But the main point of the supposed lesson on the history and philosophy of science is to say, as above, that asserting the unproved nature of scientific fact is a red herring, since all facts are unproved. The page fails to take into account, however, the Zone of Conflict, leaving unanswered the question of whether the facts of AGW are more like the well-understood principles of Newtonian physics or the little-understood composition of vacuum.

The primary fallacy the page commits is misplacing the burden of proof. While the author of the page may accept the science behind AGW, that doesn't mean that others do. The burden of proof is on the one wanting to change things. The page concludes:
Global warming is a serious problem, but even more serious, in my thinking, is the intellectual dishonesty used in denying it. Global warming deniers are of the same feather as Holocaust deniers. The truth is blatant, the data overwhelming, but they continue to spread their lies. If we let these dissemblers influence our policymaking any longer, we will pay a high price for our foolishness.
On the other hand, the absence of a proof is not a disproof, and the presence of a fallacious argument does not mean that a sound argument cannot be made. In this instance, while the page attempts to press the case for Global Warming by discrediting the arguments against it and insulting those who make them, doing so is batting down a straw man. It is, ironically, the same tactic I would be adopting if I were to claim that the page represents the entire pro-AGW argument.
[Back] Top

The Anthropocentric Global Warming Argument

Here is an outline of the pro-AGW argument. I use 'greenhouse gases' as a shorthand for methane, CO2, water vapor, and others; it is not my intention either to mislead or gloss with the label, but only to condense the argument:
  1. The Earth is warmer, and will be warmer still, because of increased levels of greenhouse gases.
    1. Average global temperatures have risen in the last century.
    2. There is more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere in the last century.
    3. Man has been putting the gases there, and continues to do so.
    4. A greenhouse gas increase causes an increase in global temperature.
  2. Computer models show that nature will not mitigate global warming on its own
  3. Warm temperatures are bad.
    1. They melt polar ice
    2. They thaw tundra, releasing stored gases, compounding the problem
    3. They make plains into deserts
    4. Computer models tell us these things, and worse, will happen
  4. Emissions are associated with other pollutants.
  5. Therefore, to fix global warming we should limit production of greenhouse gases.
The claim that temperatures have risen in the last century implies that they were constant before that, which we know not to be true. Looking only at the last century, and ignoring historical, archaeological, and geological evidence that the Earth has in the past been radically warmer and radically colder is simply disingenuous. For example, Dr Martin Keeley, a geologist and a Visiting Professor at University College London writes:
To expect permanent stability in climate patterns displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the complexity and instability of weather.
Similarly, that there are higher concentrations of certain gases in the atmosphere sounds important, but even if the changes in concentrations match precisely the temperature changes, which has not been shown, it does not mean that the gases caused the temperature change. What is required here is experimental evidence of causality, which is difficult to produce on a planetary scale.

Proposition A, we see, is an example of the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, which is Latin for "with this, therefore because of this". Just because two things happen together doesn't that mean one caused the other. The two could be unrelated, there may be other factors which are more instrumental, or the supposed effect could be the actual cause. Even if the supposed cause is generally known to have the effect in question, timing does not imply causality for any particular observation.

In the case of Global Warming, it has not been proved that increased greenhouse gas levels are the cause, or the major cause, of higher temperatures.

Computer models have been developed to show that the increased gas levels are the cause of higher temperatures, and furthermore, to predict future conditions based on various emissions patterns. But the computer models are the work of experts. The experts assert that the work is trustworthy. So we are left again with trusting the experts not only to have thought of everything, but to have accounted for their own biases while doing so.

The presumption that a group of experts formed into a scientific Society is more trustworthy than a single expert assumes that the independence of the experts is stronger than the pressure in such a society to conform. As far as I know, this has not been established. Further, some scientific groups are politically active on a range of issues, which gives the appearance that their opinion is derived from something other than purely scientific input. The introduction of points against greenhouse gas emissions that are irrelevant to the AGW argument tend to illustrate this point.

In the decision, we have four cases, all of which hide complex issues of their own:
  1. If the pro-AGW side is right and we do nothing, we face a radical change in world climate
  2. If the pro-AGW side is right and we act, and the changes work, we have the same climate but an uncertain economy
  3. If the pro-AGW side is wrong and we act, we have an uncertain economy for nothing
  4. If the pro-AGW side is wrong and we do nothing, life goes on
But what if AGW activists are only partially right? That is, what if something we're doing is causing global warming, but the gases we are trying to limit are not it? Or, if the current temperature increase is part of some natural cycle, and we act, then when the climate cools on its own, cum hoc ergo propter hoc will have struck again, in reverse, and we will be left in awe at the shaman whose incantations caused the Sun to go dim at noon.

We also don't know that warmer temperatures will be bad for humans. Warmer temperatures would seem to complicate the lives of polar bears and coral, but there is a link missing between those complications and radically changing the world economy, when it is quite possible that the warmer temperatures would improve live for humans and other life forms. It could, in fact, dramatically simplify life for humans in climates formerly too cold to inhabit; polar bears might adapt to life without ice; and coral might just grow in seas currently too cold for it.

[Back]

I do not fault any who accept the opinion of experts that AGW is real. Nor do I fault the scientists, far more able than I, who judge that CO2 levels are to blame for higher temperatures. And since they accept those premises, actively trying to avert a possible disaster is understandable.

However, the links have not been properly made. In a controversy, the side seeking change from the status quo should be able to prove its case. AGW proponents need not show that the Earth is warming, which basically everyone accepts, or even that man is the cause of the warming, which many do not. But it must be shown that human action is both necessary and sufficient to fix global warming, and that the probable benefits to mankind outweigh the costs. Since what is at stake is so drastic, I demand greater proof than has been thus far offered.

The debate over man-made climate change may in the end devolve into a popularity contest between those who accept the unproved causal link and those who remain unconvinced. I can accept the results on a political level, since it is generally good to accept the advice of experts.

Just don't call it science.


Sphere: Related Content

16 comments:

nuke gingrich said...

very nice job. Linked here
regards,
nuke

SwampWoman said...

Nice site. I've gone down and read several other articles and am impressed.

Loren Heal said...

Thank you both for your kind words.

Derek said...

You are mistaken when you say that proponents of anthropocentric global warming need to show "that some step of remediation or mitigation is likely to be better for us than some other course of action."

It is entirely consistent to believe that humans are contributing to global warming, but that the consequences of reducing fossil fuels would be so great that we should take no action.

Also: global warming can never really be proven, any more than the theory of evolution or the theory of relativity can be. Scientists just come up with theories that fit the natural world ...

Notably, the IPCC said that manmade climate change was "very likely" and over 90% certain. That's not proof. Hell even if global temperatures rose another 10 degrees in the next 10 years we couldn't be sure what was causing it.

But the fact that scientists have been warning for decades about global warming, and then the last six years have been some of the warmest on record... that strikes me as pretty good evidence.

I think you are wrong about the law, too. The 1923 case Frye v. United States required courts to look at whether a scientific technique was "generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community." The high court further refined this in 1993 (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals) requiring courts to look at things such as peer review before deciding whether an expert's methodology is reliable. So yeah, the "number of experts one can line up to agree" does matter. (We trust that the scientific community isn't totally corrupt and is in search of truth, not funding or organization. And of course there are safeguards set up for this, like tenure).

Loren Heal said...

Derek, you use arguments that don't apply to what you are arguing.

If the consequences of reducing fossil fuels are too great, then reducing them would not be the best course of action.

Global Warming is not like relativity or evolution at all.

Correlation, even predicting that the correlation will continue, does not prove causation. And I know that you can't have perfect proof; I'm looking for something other than guesswork and faith.

That peer review of methodology is relevant I do not argue. That is what it is for. But votes do not matter.

Derek said...

If the consequences of reducing fossil fuels are too great, then reducing them would not be the best course of action.

Well, of course. And there's actually room for debate over whether anything should be done about it. Honest scientists acknowledge that there's no consensus on this.

Why do you not see global warming as like evolution? You could never prove either. Even if we tracked global temperatures for the next 500 years and found a high correlation between C02 levels, that wouldn't prove global warming.

I think that the scientific consensus does matter -- especially to non-scientists like myself. I am simply not qualified to get into the nitty-gritty details of the climate debate. But I don't believe that most of the world's climate scientists are engaged in the "greatest deception in the history of science," as Canada Free Press's Timothy Ball put it recently. And I don't see the theories behind global warming as "guesswork and faith." Scientists have done devoted a lot of work trying to get the evidence -- taking ice core samples from Antarctica, measuring receeding glaciers, etc.

Read James Surowiecki's "The Wisdom of Crowds." Large groups of people are usually smarter than an elite few. Unless you want to actually do years of research and read thousands of pages of peer-reviewed journals, I submit that looking at a scientific consensus is the best way to understand what the truth is and what the facts are.

Loren Heal said...

I will read "The Wisdom of Crowds" if you will read Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

Global Warming is not like Evolution at all, except for the difficulty in testing hypotheses. It is quite possible that someone may prove that greenhouse gases are the primary cause of the warmer climate.

It's like this: I know that every breath I exhale over my morning coffee causes the house to warm up. Eventually, that kind of increase will cause me to boil alive. Should I therefore turn on the air conditioner when outside it is -5F, before it's too late?

Of course not, because I don't know how much my breathing heats the house, nor how much it is going to continue to heat the house. And there are clearly more important factors at work.

Derek said...

How could you possibly prove global warming? Without, say, building a model earth to experiment on.

I think it has been pretty well proven, though, that:

a) atmospheric CO2 levels are around 380 parts per million, the highest levels in 10,000 years (and probably 400,000 years, according to some ice core samples)

b) this rise in CO2 levels started at around the time of the Industrial Revolution.

c) Billion tonnes of CO2 are released from fossil fuels each year worldwide.

d) Global temperatures are rising, with the last few years each being some of the warmest since reliable record-keeping began.

Loren Heal said...

Did you even read the post you're commenting on?

All you are doing is showing correlation. You may as well blame it on George Foreman.

I dispute that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, which I stipulate tends to warm the air, warms the air enough to A) notice or B) harm humans, directly or indirectly.

Derek said...

Well, if you reread my comment, I was pretty careful how I phrased it. I didn't draw any conclusions. Of course correlation doesn't prove causation. That is why the IPCC says global warming is only 90% likely -- it could just be a big coincidence.

But the more millennia-old ice sheets that break up, the bigger coincidence it would have to be.

Similarly, scientists have measured thousands of ice sheets, tree rings, stalactites and corals to try to get a sense of global temperatures for the past 1,000 years to try to eliminate natural variation as a cause of global warming. The more evidence we have that the warming we're already seeing is unprecedented, the stronger we can conclude it would need to be an awfully big coincidence for it not to be man-made.

But again: how do you think we could "prove" global warming? (Short of building a model earth). Isn't correlation the best we have to go on? As well as eliminating the other possible causes of the warming we're seeing? (solar variability, natural variation, urban heat islands, etc.)

You say you agree that CO2 levels raise the temperature, just not enough to notice. But we have indeed noticed a rise in temperatures. How do you account for that?

Loren Heal said...

Sigh.

It is not my job to account for the change in temperature. I simply say you have not sufficiently made your case. The burden of proof is on the assertion, and it is not enough to point to a chain of fallacies and claim that changes the burden.

And it is also not my job to show that a better proof exists (in the form of an experiment). Saying that since no one has an experiment, we must agree with the assertion, is an Appeal to Ignorance.

Look, you accept the causality, and I do not. Believe what you wish. Just don't tell me what to do based on that acceptance until you can come up with evidence and arguments other than those which I've already shown to be inconclusive.

Derek said...

But no one's saying that global warming has been proven. I'm not, and the IPCC isn't. Scientists are just saying that if you look at the evidence, it's very likely -- over 90% likely.

If you want to say that it isn't likely, then you're similarly making an assertion and need to state your evidence or reasons. Simply saying "I just don't buy it" isn't helpful and doesn't add to the debate.

I'm still waiting to hear how you think that global warming could ever be proven. I submit to you that it never could be, any more than evolution or relativity could be. That is not how science works in the natural world. We accept theories like Newtonian physics because they seem to accurately describe how the world works, until a new and better theory comes along. But these theories can never be proven, 'cause you can never know "the mind of god" (for lack of a better term).

Loren Heal said...

So now unless I can provide a better explanation, I have to accept the consensus? And 90% acceptance is of the same order of reasonability as Newtonian Mechanics?

You must be a Leibnitz fan.

Jake Odell said...

Great post.

I share your skepticism with global warming for the same reasons you have outlined to great detail. derek fails to see that his "challenge" is no different than asking you to prove there is no God, and failing to do so, assert there must be one. And then he chastizes you for failing to "add to the debate" that only he wishes to continue. The religious allusion was no accident.

I hate talking about global warming for these reasons and don't wish to continue, but I hope to comment on other well thought-out posts of yours in the future.

Derek said...

So now unless I can provide a better explanation, I have to accept the consensus?

You don't need to be able to come up with a complete explanation, but you should be able to explain why you don't accept the consensus.

I mean, you've set yourself up as a "voice of reason" here ... a reasonable person who has looked at the evidence and doesn't believe it.

Surely, it's fair to ask for the specific reasons why you don't accept the scientific consensus.

It also seems fair to ask you, what evidence could persuade you to believe that global warming is indeed "very likely." I mean, as a reasonable person, your mind is open, right?

Jake, you do me an injustice. I have not asked Loren to prove anything. I just want to know the specific reasons why he doesn't accept the consensus. That is a fair question, just like it's a fair question to ask an atheist the reasons why he doesn't believe in God.

The burden is on the person making the assertion, true, but once an assertion is made and evidence is offered then skeptics need to give counter-evidence or specific reasons why the presented evidence fails to persuade. Otherwise it is fair to conclude that the skeptics are not open to reason.

For example Loren accuses scientists of ignoring "historical, archaeological, and geological evidence that the Earth has in the past been radically warmer and radically colder."

Well, obviously we know it has been "radically cooler" in the past -- the world was covered in glaciers at one point. But if we can determine the temperature has been within a certain range for the past 160,000 years, say, and then it starts to get warmer at about the same time of the Industrial Revolution ... isn't this pretty good evidence that gases from the greenhouse gases likely caused the change in climate?

Anyway I am curious to hear Loren's "historical, archaeological, and geological evidence."

Also, saying that I'm the only one who wishes to continue the debate seems a bit close-minded to me ... I mean, I'm responding to a post on Loren's blog.

Loren Heal said...

["...
The burden is on the person making the assertion, true, but once an assertion is made and evidence is offered then skeptics need to give counter-evidence or specific reasons why the presented evidence fails to persuade. Otherwise it is fair to conclude that the skeptics are not open to reason.
..."]

Fair enough.

The presented evidence fails to persuade because:

- It fails to account for the lag time between CO2 level and temperature (CO2 trails temperature in the geological) record

-- The miniscule amounts of CO2 in the air compared with water, both in gaseous and droplet/crystal form

-- The changes in solar radiation that have occurred at the same time as the CO2 increases make the whole CO2 explanation seem like a post hoc

I could go on, but my net connection is bad because of a huge, unseasonably late winter ice storm keelhauling the Midwestern U.S.. Yes, I know that the singular of data is not anecdote, but I thought it was ironic enough to mention.

Blog stats

Add to Technorati Favorites